RHJunior wrote:England's contribution to the world was that all the people who were worth spit on a griddle were either <I>thrown</i> out, or <I>got up and left.</i> And then when we got sick of them trying to run things by parcel post, we kicked the last of 'em out and took over for ourselves... and built TWO nations that went from the Oxcart to the supersonic jet in less than two centuries, and eat and crap more than their GNP every day of the week.

And that, my little roundheads, is how America and Australia were born.

A bit of an addendum. Our founding fathers did not see themselves as breaking away from Britain, so much as they saw themselves as continuing and advancing the originally English concepts of justice and constitutional rights. Indeed most of them, at the first, wanted to remain in union with Britain, with the radicals suggesting independence being relatively few in number until early 1776. The founding fathers intended to use the conflict to achieve equality under the auspices of the English constitution, by receiving their own Members of Parliament to represent their interests. But by late 1775 and early 1776, the centrists determined that the British would never willingly do this, and turned instead to independence as their only recourse. You will see this slow change by reading the various correspondence of the time, going from the Olive Branch Petition to the Declaration of Independence; the former was supplication for the redress of injuries, whereas the latter was the outcome of the contemptuous response received.

It must be said, therefore, that England (and to a lesser extent the Dutch and Swiss) built the foundation and America built the house; having thus proven the architecture to be sound, we turned over our blueprints to the rest of the world, and they have been quite busily copying us.

Also... the Roundheads were the supporters of Parliament during the English Civil War, and they thus would be in our own "lineage of freedom", so to speak; I think you used it as an insult, while 'Cavalier' would have been more correct to the matter. The term originated as an insult for a man with republican tendencies, whereas the Cavaliers were the servants of the king, and supported monarchial rule. The terms eventually morphed to "Whigs" (Roundheads) and "Tories" (Cavaliers); it was the Whigs in the American colonies who became the Patriots.

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

RHJunior wrote:England's contribution to the world was that all the people who were worth spit on a griddle were either <I>thrown</i> out, or <I>got up and left.</i> And then when we got sick of them trying to run things by parcel post, we kicked the last of 'em out and took over for ourselves... and built TWO nations that went from the Oxcart to the supersonic jet in less than two centuries, and eat and crap more than their GNP every day of the week.

And that, my little roundheads, is how America and Australia were born.

It should ALSO be noted that Australia did NOT kick England out. Australia never became independent through rebellion, it was GIVEN its independence over time after it became too expensive to keep them. The same as it was for Canada and pretty much every other nation except America that England turned into a colony.

America rebelled for reasons that are, to say the least, a bit silly. The major causes were various taxes, such as the Stamp and Tea Tax, but the truth is, these taxes were imposed to help America and to defend it. The money was used to place troops along the borders of the Colonies along French Lands (Which were later bought by the United States in the early 1800's). Americans refused to go and defend their own land, so England placed the tax in, and suddenly they really WANTED to defend their land.

But anyway, the end result doesn't matter. America's government, including the Presidential system, the Congress, the Senate, it's legal system, it's police, fire department... Guess who that was all based off? And let us not forget that all the mass-production techniques it had originally came from England as well.

As to Australia, it remained a legal part of Britain until 1931, but oddly Australia did not even accept the statue that made it law until 1942, when Britain was defeated in Japan and Australia sought, in an act of self preservation, to temporarily make itself a neutral country. The moment the Allied Forces (Including but not limited to in alphabetical order, England, Canada, and the United States) returned to China, Australia returned its support to the war and became integral in taking out Japan, as well as assisting in the European Conflict. Believe it or not, the Australians did about as much as the Americans did, without as many troops or weapons.

And oh yes, let us not forget Canada. America's Number One trading partner, a close military ally, and culturally... Well, culturally we're totally different, but we're economically close and have more social programs. That and our population is about 31 million and yours is about... Seven, seven and a half times that. We were always a close ally of Britain, in fact, and we have a very high standard of living, and until military power was included in the standard-of-living chart, we were pretty much in the top five every year. And even now, we're only around seven or so.

Soooo... Yes. Could it be America owes its existance as the Land of the Free to England? Seems like it to me.

Axelgear wrote:It should also be noted that America rebelled for reasons that are, to say the least, a bit silly. The major causes were various taxes, such as the Stamp and Tea Tax, but the truth is, these taxes were imposed to help America and to defend it. The money was used to place troops along the borders of the Colonies along French Lands (Which were later bought by the United States in the early 1800's). Americans refused to go and defend their own land, so England placed the tax in, and suddenly they really WANTED to defend their land.

You are mistaken, sir. To rebel over taxes might seem silly to us today, but only if we do not understand the situation. Allow me to elaborate.

The original difficulty was indeed over taxes: not their payment, but in their manner of enforcement and creation. The colonials' chief complaint was that Britain had enforced the taxes upon them without their council; up until this point no (or very few) taxes had been placed upon the colonists, as most of the taxes went to the colonial government, which was responsible for the defense of the territories. As they were rather upset by this alarming new position, they organized protests and boycotts of the chosen items. The British therefore precipitated the Crisis by awarding monopolies to businesses such as the British East India Tea Company, in the intent to force the colonials into obedience.

The Gaspee Incident in 1772 was a major contributor, as well: an "overzealous" British captain hunting smugglers in Narragansett Bay ran his ship aground; the locals, who had suffered from his attitude, rowed out and burnt the ship. The Crown responded by revoking the rights of ALL the colonies to try their own criminals (or British criminals in America, as shown in the Boston Massacre trial). By 1773, there was a great deal of unrest in Boston due to the enforcement of the tea monopoly, and when Governor Hutchinson gave the order to land the tea under the threat of force, the colonials threw a tea-party. In retaliation, the British closed the port of Boston to merchant traffic, limited free speech, revoked the charter of Massachusetts, and declared that British soldiers could be quartered in the homes of colonials, who would have to pay the cost for keeping them there. Previous Quartering Acts had specified that troops would only be placed in unoccupied dwellings, such as barns or abandoned houses; the 1774 act allowed them to be placed in occupied homes as well.

This, needless to say, was viewed as affront to all of the liberties the colonists thought they had been guaranteed as their rights as English citizens. The British furthermore began collecting gunpowder and arms from the militia, organized by the colonial government; the idea was for the British to deprive the Americans of their means with which to resist. There were several "Powder Alarms" during 1774 and early 1775, as the Americans tried to keep their ammunition while the British tried to take it. The British were always careful not to cause any casualties; and after seven months of this they finally messed up in Lexington. They promptly got their rears handed to them by a thousand or more angry farmers, fighting in their militia units (and a few behind the proverbial rocks and trees, but mostly in loose units). On the march back, they lost all control, killed a few dozen innocents on their way through, burned a number of houses, and were generally destructive. The colonial militias bottled them up in Boston and in 1776 finally forced them out by arming the Dorchester Heights with cannon.

It may have started as a debate over taxes, but what it very rapidly became was a war of Americans being exasperated with British reprisals. The ruling opinion in 1775 was that the ministers were corrupt, but that the King was innocent of everything but being mislead. As the war continued, it soon became clear that the king was perfectly aware of the situation and had authorized every blatant misuse of force in order to force the colonists into surrender.

So the war was NOT about taxes at all; it was about determining how far a government can take its abuse, and whether or not free people would stand against it or acceed to the chains being placed on their hands. Sic semper tyrannis.

Addendum: and those taxes, yes, what were they for? They were for repaying the loans and heavy debts the British government had incured during the French and Indian/Seven Years War. BRITISH loans, not American loans.

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

Ahem, let's go from the end to the beginning here. It seems the quickest way to solve this...

First of all, those taxes were NOT to repay loans. Those taxes were to pay for the border guarding and British troops in America. Britain did not impose the same taxes in Canada. Why not? Because the Canadian Colonies were already paying for their own defense force. Americans refused to defend their territories and paid for it. The taxes HAD to be enforced or Britain would have to take loans to pay for the debt incurred by America. America would never pass a tax to pay for what they were getting for free in the first place, and Britain didn't have time to put it through. In retrospect though, it would have been a good idea.

As to the strong-armed laws, Britain, in its tactics, was trying to defend its interests. Americans were clearly violating the law and preparing to rebel, and Britain tried to quash it before it came to be. Had Lexington not happened, it actually seems like America may not have even rebelled. The fact is, however, that Americans had broken the law and Britain had to enforce it. The harsh tactics were there for the simple purpose of giving the British Troops the ability to prevent rebellion. Not a smart tactic but it was not without reason.

As to the defeat at Lexington, Britain had a habit of being willing to win at any cost, stubbornly so, and was not suited to Militia tactics (A lesson learned by 1812). Bunker Hill proved this pretty well. Lexington was what can be called a Surprise Attack of Unparalleled Magnitude, just like the D-Day invasions. As far as the War of Independence went, Britain made some thick-headed mistakes really though.

America's independence was fought over a right to self-governance, but this lack of self-governance was only desired after Americans defied Britains attempts to try and protect them from France anyway. It is a sure thing that, had Ameirca not allied with France to oppose Britain, it would have been invaded, if not then, then later by Napolean (Because he DID try it. He just lost about 3/4ths of his army to Yellow Fever and gave it up before firing a shot). America oddly owes its existance, once again, to Britain for that little fact, even if it wasn't intentional. Britain wanted to defend its interests in America, America didn't want to pay to defend itself, and so began the downward spiral to war.

It does seem funny that the lack of the willingness to become borderguards was what spurred on the same fierceness to rebel. Had America decided to guard its territory (Meaning the tax could be implemented through the colonial government and would have been less likely to be rejected), who knows? America could have remained an English Colony as long as the rest of them did.

There was a little document signed on 4 July 1776 that established why the american colonies rebelled. Here are the relevant complaints:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

The complaint about taxes is, I believe, #17 on the list. So, yes, there was a component of tax protest to the american revolution. I think it's fair to say that it's nowhere near the whole story.

Taxes were not the root cause, they were the catalyst. When people refuse to pay, Britain must enforce the law. When people try to break the law, Britain must make the law harsher. When people try harder to shirk the law, Britain must make the law harsher than even before. The eventual result is that one side just snaps.

All the things on that list actually seem to be summable in a few short words:

The Manipulation of the Courts.

The things he declares as crimes are actually usable in the War Provisions in the US today (And the War Measures Act here). The King did all he could to try and squash the Rebellion and the end result was bringing it to full power.

Axelgear wrote:Ahem, let's go from the end to the beginning here. It seems the quickest way to solve this...

First of all, those taxes were NOT to repay loans. Those taxes were to pay for the border guarding and British troops in America. Britain did not impose the same taxes in Canada. Why not? Because the Canadian Colonies were already paying for their own defense force. Americans refused to defend their territories and paid for it. The taxes HAD to be enforced or Britain would have to take loans to pay for the debt incurred by America. America would never pass a tax to pay for what they were getting for free in the first place, and Britain didn't have time to put it through. In retrospect though, it would have been a good idea.

As to the strong-armed laws, Britain, in its tactics, was trying to defend its interests. Americans were clearly violating the law and preparing to rebel, and Britain tried to quash it before it came to be. Had Lexington not happened, it actually seems like America may not have even rebelled. The fact is, however, that Americans had broken the law and Britain had to enforce it. The harsh tactics were there for the simple purpose of giving the British Troops the ability to prevent rebellion. Not a smart tactic but it was not without reason.

America's independence was fought over a right to self-governance, but this lack of self-governance was only desired after Americans defied Britains attempts to try and protect them from France anyway. It is a sure thing that, had Ameirca not allied with France to oppose Britain, it would have been invaded, if not then, then later by Napolean (Because he DID try it. He just lost about 3/4ths of his army to Yellow Fever and gave it up before firing a shot). America oddly owes its existance, once again, to Britain for that little fact, even if it wasn't intentional. Britain wanted to defend its interests in America, America didn't want to pay to defend itself, and so began the downward spiral to war.

It does seem funny that the lack of the willingness to become borderguards was what spurred on the same fierceness to rebel. Had America decided to guard its territory (Meaning the tax could be implemented through the colonial government and would have been less likely to be rejected), who knows? America could have remained an English Colony as long as the rest of them did.

What do they teach in schools these days? YES, those taxes were being used to repay war loans from the Seven Years War. And the comments about defense are, in a word, asinine - the colonies were, from their founding down to the time of independence, using their own, internally-raised militia for their own defense (paid for by the colony's taxes upon its own populace, and not supported in any way by Britain). If you doubt this, I encourage you to read a few more history books, or research the 1744 Expedition by the New England colonies to capture the fortress of Louisburg, in Nova Scotia. And guess what? The Colonies paid for that little adventure, and commanded that little adventure, and died finishing that little adventure... and then the British promptly turned around and gave it back to the Frenchies. At least in the French&Indian War they blew it up and kept the land!

Let us move this forward into the modern era. You shop for food at a supermarket. The government decides, for various reasons, that it is going to buy stock in one of the supermarket chains. Once they have their stock, they have a sudden and pressing need for money: they decide to impose a special tax on all groceries sold by the supermarket. BUT, they exempt the supermarket chain they own. People protest this. As in all real-life scenarios, a handful of people see the Hand of Tyranny descending upon their shopping experience. They picket the supermarket, and convince people not to buy from it. The government responds by closing all the other supermarkets, so that you may only shop at their supermarket. People in your area ask them to reverse this. The government replies with the middle finger, and in punishment close all the Corner Mart and Walmart stores, and disbands the state legislature. Troops move in to secure the supermarkets, and the government says that YOU must house them in YOUR home at YOUR expense.

I repeat. The revolution was NOT over taxes, it was about a long, continuous string of abuses by a government which turned down time after time after time any overtures to productively solve the problem. The British government officials declared that the colonists were like stupid, misguided children who needed the discipline of their stern and wise Britannic father, who knew what was best for his little poor uneducated colonial children. The colonists asked again and again for redress to be paid to their grievances. Their answer came with repeated slaps in the face. The British burned and shelled towns (Falmouth, Norfolk); they seized local government property; they hired foreign mercenaries to conquer the colonists when their own soldiers proved unable to do the job. And then, and THEN, they had the GALL to be SURPRISED when we fought back!

Axelgear wrote:Taxes were not the root cause, they were the catalyst. When people refuse to pay, Britain must enforce the law. When people try to break the law, Britain must make the law harsher.

It wasn't until December 1773 that the colonists as a group began breaking the law. That was AFTER Britain had removed from them the right of trial by jury and removed their forms of self-government. For instance, the Gaspee Incident. It was only Rhode Islanders that participated. Why then were the magistrates removed in New Hampshire and Georgia? Georgia wasn't responsible. They didn't even consider themselves part of the other colonies.

Axelgear wrote:Lexington was what can be called a Surprise Attack of Unparalleled Magnitude, just like the D-Day invasions.

Nope, sorry. The British made an error of arrogance, which is far more deadly a mistake; they believed that the colonials would "run for the safety of their wives' skirts" the moment they saw a formation of British troops. Neither side wanted to fire the first shots; the first shot was unidentified and remains so to this day, but following that shot, the British cracked, and fired without orders. They promptly thought the rest of the mission would be a cakewalk. They didn't recall the first Powder Alarm, where ten thousand colonists turned out due to the rumor that the British had shot a few locals. And the British still thought they would run for their wives' skirts. Surprise Attack? NOPE. Arrogance.

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

The Tea Act shows nicely that it wasn't even taxes at all, but rather a lack of them. They were undercutting the prices, which led to smuggling, which led to the enforcements and the war. The Seven Year War was not the cause of the problems, the East India Company was. It was facing bankruptcy and needed a bail-out, and American tea-farmers were the ones who got to pay for it. The Tea Tax was not so much an increase on their taxes as a decrease on someone elses. We were both wrong on that one

The Stamp Act was another story. Read about four or five lines down. I'll give you a few things to read over though that really help.

"The Act was enacted in order to defray the cost of maintaining the military presence protecting the colonies"

"Colonists threatened tax collectors with tarring and feathering, a very painful process. Few collectors were willing to risk their well-being to uphold the tax."

Admittently, Americans were not easily able to get representation, but not due to opposition, but distance. The nation was seperated by a lot of water, and they had to pay passage to send such documents on a ship, to be processed, and to be returned.

As to the rights violations, I think you're referring to the Writs of Assistance mostly. These did come before the taxes, yes. The British Government wanted to stop smugglers, and set these open-ended search warrants. Warrants, I may add, that are still in use today. In fact, the full-search warrants to search a premises in the United States today are almost identical to these (And they're still usable in Canada, primarily to seize "illicit goods" such as pornographic material). The predicted end result of the Writs was to stop smugglers and Dutch traders, but all it did was aggrivate the Colonists. I can't find any other of the violations you mention though so please find me information on the "Giving Quarter to Soldiers" thing that came before 1765. If it came before 1765, I'll admit to you the rights violations were not caused by the Americans rebelling but by Britains opposing the Dutch.

EDIT: And oh yes, you're right about Lexington. Americans didn't back down as pretty much everyone had. They REALLY should've sent an experienced Canadian General. The Canadian or British Generals stationed further north knew how to fight rebels and a guerilla war. I am certain if it was someone different, the war would've been very different. Most likely, Britain would've still lost eventually, due to France, but it would not have been such a powerful victory.

Axelgear wrote:our population is about 31 million and yours is about... Seven, seven and a half times that.

Underestimated. The U.S. population recently topped 300 million. Just to be safe, I checked the CIA website on Canada. As of July this year, its population was 33 million. So replace that "seven, seven and a half" with "nine."

The reason Canada has such a low population vis-a-vis the US is that nine tenths of its area is uninhabitable to any human who is not a masochist (Australia has a similar problem, but in the opposite direction) .

Or it could just be lack of farmland in that area... Canada is about 70 to 80% habitable, but that doesn't change the masochist part. Look at Alberta. -38 during the DAY last week. Heh, I ain't going there on vacation...

As to the population, we just lack the massive influx of immigrants. Everyone who came to Canada was, more or less, British until they opened Alberta and BC, and even then, we didn't get THAT many people because, well... There's a bit of a Human Rights infraction and lots of dead Chinese people, I'll leave it at that... Our bad...

Taxes were not the root cause, they were the catalyst. When people refuse to pay, Britain must enforce the law. When people try to break the law, Britain must make the law harsher. When people try harder to shirk the law, Britain must make the law harsher than even before. The eventual result is that one side just snaps.

All the things on that list actually seem to be summable in a few short words:

The Manipulation of the Courts.

The things he declares as crimes are actually usable in the War Provisions in the US today (And the War Measures Act here). The King did all he could to try and squash the Rebellion and the end result was bringing it to full power.

Please reread the list and ask on each one "is this a manipulation of the courts". The top 7, by my count, aren't. Rather they are assaults on normal legislative and executive authority. 8 and 9 fit the bill but it isn't until 18 that the judiciary is again the subject of a complaint with 19 being the last judiciary related injury. 4 out of 27 does not make for a dominant thread of the complaints in the DoI.

In short, your analysis is ahistorical. The evidence is in the DoI. Read it carefully and you'll get pretty close to the truth of the matter of why there was rebellion.